Elon Musk and Twitter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Laura Loomer is back on Twitter.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

These speak for themselves.

And:

And:

 

Michael

 

[Peter]

Elon Musk would look well in a Star Trek uniform. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Marc posted this in another thread.

2 hours ago, Marc said:

 

I will use that as the opening tweet of an new Twitter dump.

As usual, I will make a version for reading without the noise. But I am in the middle for formatting it right now, there are a lot of tweets (57 by number), and Taibbi's numbering is off at times.

So I will provide my own easier-on-the-eyes form in a different post.

For now, go to Twitter if you want to read that thread.

This one is going to blast everything wide open.

And there is a lot more coming after that.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the expanded Twitter thread.

As I said before, there are some inconsistencies with the Taibbi's numbering.

Note:
Tweet 22 is missing.
There is an unnumbered tweet between 24 and 25.
Tweets 28, 29, and 30 are missing.
There is an unnumbered tweet between 32 and 33.
Tweet 33 is used twice for two different tweets.
There is an unnumbered tweet between 36 and 37.
Tweet 56 is not numbered, but it is in the right place.

I may have missed something, but I think I got it all.

So here we go:

 

QUOTE

Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi

1. THREAD: The Twitter Files THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP Part One: October 2020-January 6th

. . .

2. The world knows much of the story of what happened between riots at the Capitol on January 6th, and the removal of President Donald Trump from Twitter on January 8th...

. . .

3. We’ll show you what hasn’t been revealed: the erosion of standards within the company in months before J6, decisions by high-ranking executives to violate their own policies, and more, against the backdrop of ongoing, documented interaction with federal agencies.

. . .

4. This first installment covers the period before the election through January 6th. Tomorrow, @Shellenbergermd will detail the chaos inside Twitter on January 7th. On Sunday, @BariWeiss will reveal the secret internal communications from the key date of January 8th.

. . .

5. Whatever your opinion on the decision to remove Trump that day, the internal communications at Twitter between January 6th-January 8th have clear historical import. Even Twitter’s employees understood in the moment it was a landmark moment in the annals of speech.

. . .

6. As soon as they finished banning Trump, Twitter execs started processing new power. They prepared to ban future presidents and White Houses – perhaps even Joe Biden. The “new administration,” says one exec, “will not be suspended by Twitter unless absolutely necessary.”

. . .

7. Twitter executives removed Trump in part over what one executive called the “context surrounding”: actions by Trump and supporters “over the course of the election and frankly last 4+ years.” In the end, they looked at a broad picture. But that approach can cut both ways.

. . .

8. The bulk of the internal debate leading to Trump’s ban took place in those three January days. However, the intellectual framework was laid in the months preceding the Capitol riots.

. . .

9. Before J6, Twitter was a unique mix of automated, rules-based enforcement, and more subjective moderation by senior executives. As @BariWeiss reported, the firm had a vast array of tools for manipulating visibility, most all of which were thrown at Trump (and others) pre-J6.

. . .

10. As the election approached, senior executives – perhaps under pressure from federal agencies, with whom they met more as time progressed – increasingly struggled with rules, and began to speak of “vios” as pretexts to do what they’d likely have done anyway.

. . .

11. After J6, internal Slacks show Twitter executives getting a kick out of intensified relationships with federal agencies. Here’s Trust and Safety head Yoel Roth, lamenting a lack of “generic enough” calendar descriptions to concealing his “very interesting” meeting partners.

. . .

12. These initial reports are based on searches for docs linked to prominent executives, whose names are already public. They include Roth, former trust and policy chief Vijaya Gadde, and recently plank-walked Deputy General Counsel (and former top FBI lawyer) Jim Baker.

. . .

13. One particular slack channel offers an unique window into the evolving thinking of top officials in late 2020 and early 2021.

. . .

14. On October 8th, 2020, executives opened a channel called “us2020_xfn_enforcement.” Through J6, this would be home for discussions about election-related removals, especially ones that involved “high-profile” accounts (often called “VITs” or “Very Important Tweeters”).

. . .

15. There was at least some tension between Safety Operations – a larger department whose staffers used a more rules-based process for addressing issues like porn, scams, and threats – and a smaller, more powerful cadre of senior policy execs like Roth and Gadde.

. . .

16. The latter group were a high-speed Supreme Court of moderation, issuing content rulings on the fly, often in minutes and based on guesses, gut calls, even Google searches, even in cases involving the President.

. . .

17. During this time, executives were also clearly liaising with federal enforcement and intelligence agencies about moderation of election-related content. While we’re still at the start of reviewing the #TwitterFiles, we’re finding out more about these interactions every day.

. . .

18. Policy Director Nick Pickles is asked if they should say Twitter detects “misinfo” through “ML, human review, and **partnerships with outside experts?*” The employee asks, “I know that’s been a slippery process… not sure if you want our public explanation to hang on that.”

. . .

19. Pickles quickly asks if they could “just say “partnerships.” After a pause, he says, “e.g. not sure we’d describe the FBI/DHS as experts.”

. . .

20. This post about the Hunter Biden laptop situation shows that Roth not only met weekly with the FBI and DHS, but with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI):

. . .

21. Roth’s report to FBI/DHS/DNI is almost farcical in its self-flagellating tone: “We blocked the NYP story, then unblocked it (but said the opposite)… comms is angry, reporters think we’re idiots… in short, FML” (fuck my life).

. . .

23. Some of Roth’s later Slacks indicate his weekly confabs with federal law enforcement involved separate meetings. Here, he ghosts the FBI and DHS, respectively, to go first to an “Aspen Institute thing,” then take a call with Apple.

. . .

24. Here, the FBI sends reports about a pair of tweets, the second of which involves a former Tippecanoe County, Indiana Councilor and Republican named @JohnBasham claiming “Between 2% and 25% of Ballots by Mail are Being Rejected for Errors.”

. . .

The FBI's second report concerned this tweet by @JohnBasham:

. . .

25. The FBI-flagged tweet then got circulated in the enforcement Slack. Twitter cited Politifact to say the first story was “proven to be false,” then noted the second was already deemed “no vio on numerous occasions.”

. . .

26. The group then decides to apply a “Learn how voting is safe and secure” label because one commenter says, “it’s totally normal to have a 2% error rate.” Roth then gives the final go-ahead to the process initiated by the FBI:

. . .

27. Examining the entire election enforcement Slack, we didn’t see one reference to moderation requests from the Trump campaign, the Trump White House, or Republicans generally. We looked. They may exist: we were told they do. However, they were absent here.

. . .

31. In one case, former Arizona governor Mike Huckabee joke-tweets about mailing in ballots for his “deceased parents and grandparents.”

. . .

32. This inspires a long Slack that reads like an @TitaniaMcGrath parody. “I agree it’s a joke,” concedes a Twitter employee, “but he’s also literally admitting in a tweet a crime.”

. . .

The group declares Huck’s an “edge case,” and though one notes, “we don’t make exceptions for jokes or satire,” they ultimately decide to leave him be, because “we’ve poked enough bears.”

. . .

33. "Could still mislead people... could still mislead people," the humor-averse group declares, before moving on from Huckabee

. . .

33. Roth suggests moderation even in this absurd case could depend on whether or not the joke results in “confusion.” This seemingly silly case actually foreshadows serious later issues:

. . .

34. In the docs, execs often expand criteria to subjective issues like intent (yes, a video is authentic, but why was it shown?), orientation (was a banned tweet shown to condemn, or support?), or reception (did a joke cause “confusion”?). This reflex will become key in J6.

. . .

35. In another example, Twitter employees prepare to slap a “mail-in voting is safe” warning label on a Trump tweet about a postal screwup in Ohio, before realizing “the events took place,” which meant the tweet was “factually accurate”:

 

. . .

36. “VERY WELL DONE ON SPEED” Trump was being “visibility filtered” as late as a week before the election. Here, senior execs didn’t appear to have a particular violation, but still worked fast to make sure a fairly anodyne Trump tweet couldn’t be “replied to, shared, or liked”:

 

. . .

"VERY WELL DONE ON SPEED": the group is pleased the Trump tweet is dealt with quickly

. . .

37. A seemingly innocuous follow-up involved a tweet from actor @realJamesWoods, whose ubiquitous presence in argued-over Twitter data sets is already a #TwitterFiles in-joke.

. . .

38. After Woods angrily quote-tweeted about Trump’s warning label, Twitter staff – in a preview of what ended up happening after J6 – despaired of a reason for action, but resolved to “hit him hard on future vio.”

. . .

39. Here a label is applied to Georgia Republican congresswoman Jody Hice for saying, “Say NO to big tech censorship!” and, “Mailed ballots are more prone to fraud than in-person balloting… It’s just common sense.”

. . .

40. Twitter teams went easy on Hice, only applying “soft intervention,” with Roth worrying about a “wah wah censorship” optics backlash:

. . .

41. Meanwhile, there are multiple instances of involving pro-Biden tweets warning Trump “may try to steal the election” that got surfaced, only to be approved by senior executives. This one, they decide, just “expresses concern that mailed ballots might not make it on time.”

 

. . .

42. “THAT’S UNDERSTANDABLE”: Even the hashtag #StealOurVotes – referencing a theory that a combo of Amy Coney Barrett and Trump will steal the election – is approved by Twitter brass, because it’s “understandable” and a “reference to… a US Supreme Court decision.”

 

. . .

43. In this exchange, again unintentionally humorous, former Attorney General Eric Holder claimed the U.S. Postal Service was “deliberately crippled,”ostensibly by the Trump administration. He was initially hit with a generic warning label, but it was quickly taken off by Roth:

 

. . .

44. Later in November 2020, Roth asked if staff had a “debunk moment” on the “SCYTL/Smartmantic vote-counting” stories, which his DHS contacts told him were a combination of “about 47” conspiracy theories:

. . .

45. On December 10th, as Trump was in the middle of firing off 25 tweets saying things like, “A coup is taking place in front of our eyes,” Twitter executives announced a new “L3 deamplification” tool. This step meant a warning label now could also come with deamplification:

. . .

46. Some executives wanted to use the new deamplification tool to silently limit Trump’s reach more right away, beginning with the following tweet:

. . .

47. However, in the end, the team had to use older, less aggressive labeling tools at least for that day, until the “L3 entities” went live the following morning.

 

. . .

48. The significance is that it shows that Twitter, in 2020 at least, was deploying a vast range of visible and invisible tools to rein in Trump’s engagement, long before J6. The ban will come after other avenues are exhausted

. . .

49. In Twitter docs execs frequently refer to “bots,” e.g. “let’s put a bot on that.” A bot is just any automated heuristic moderation rule. It can be anything: every time a person in Brazil uses “green” and “blob” in the same sentence, action might be taken.

. . .

50. In this instance, it appears moderators added a bot for a Trump claim made on Breitbart. The bot ends up becoming an automated tool invisibly watching both Trump and, apparently, Breitbart (“will add media ID to bot”). Trump by J6 was quickly covered in bots.

 

. . .

51. There is no way to follow the frenzied exchanges among Twitter personnel from between January 6thand 8th without knowing the basics of the company’s vast lexicon of acronyms and Orwellian unwords.

. . .

52. To “bounce” an account is to put it in timeout, usually for a 12-hour review/cool-off:

. . .

53. “Interstitial,” one of many nouns used as a verb in Twitterspeak (“denylist” is another), means placing a physical label atop a tweet, so it can’t be seen.

. . .

54. PII has multiple meanings, one being “Public Interest Interstitial,” i.e. a covering label applied for “public interest” reasons. The post below also references “proactive V,” i.e. proactive visibility filtering.

. . .

55. This is all necessary background to J6. Before the riots, the company was engaged in an inherently insane/impossible project, trying to create an ever-expanding, ostensibly rational set of rules to regulate every conceivable speech situation that might arise between humans.

. . .

This project was preposterous yet its leaders were unable to see this, having become infected with groupthing, coming to believe – sincerely – that it was Twitter's responsibility to control, as much as possible, what people could talk about, how often, and with whom.

. . .

57. The firm’s executives on day 1 of the January 6th crisis at least tried to pay lip service to its dizzying array of rules. By day 2, they began wavering. By day 3, a million rules were reduced to one: what we say, goes

END QUOTE

 

Now watch the kaboom.

 

Michael

[ThatGuy]

If I needed another reason not to trust Musk 100% (what with his neural link ambition and his "vox populi" mentality)..
 

"Do I think Trump would have lost anyway? Yes. And, as a reminder, I supported Biden, Hilary and Obama. Nonetheless, election interference by social media companies obviously undermines the public’s faith in democracy and is wrong."

Still, it's nice to see some integrity shown. Glass half-empty, half-full, I guess...even if it was someone who voted for Biden...

 

 

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

TG,

I don't think for a minute Elon believes Trump would have lost anyway. 

I think he's bullshitting because he's holding one hell of a hot potato in his hands right now.

Look what he wrote here:

With rare exception?

Rare exception?

Heh.

Like the FBI in weekly meetings with Twitter admins to do nasty stuff to Twitter users, or the FBI's infiltration of Twitter with a mole who helps rig elections and hides and deletes evidence of FBI wrongdoing?

 

Elon's playing the game. His public role is "objective businessman" who is profit-oriented and above all the politics. And I see this--in this context--as a role, not a belief system.

Even further, that is the best role to play to disinfect Twitter from all the nasty shit the intelligence community did with it.

As Elon said elsewhere, he is not suicidal. I think he knows he's playing with some nasty people. And that role helps a little. It allows him to throw a pork chop or two to the beast at the door.

I say let's give Elon a bit of flexibility while he is in drain the swamp mode. Instead of looking at what he says, look at what he does. When there is a discrepancy, take what he does as the better indicator of his true intentions.

If you want a Randian reference, think Francisco D'Anconia. 

Francisco lied to scumbags and hung out with them, too.

 

My beef with Elon is all that CCP money and government money in general. I mean, he is taking their money and doing great things with it, but it is still blood money.

A left wing singer I once produced (Geraldo Vandré) told me, when I said I did not want to take government money, that I was wrong. He said I should not only take it, but take ALL of it--ALL of it--and do beautiful things with it before they do shit. Because shit is the only thing they know how to do.

I put Elon in that kind of thinking. But I still don't like it.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

I don't think for a minute Elon believes Trump would have lost anyway. 

I think he's bullshitting because he's holding one hell of a hot potato in his hands right now.

Look what he wrote here:

With rare exception?

Rare exception?

Heh.

Like the FBI in weekly meetings with Twitter admins to do nasty stuff to Twitter users, or the FBI's infiltration of Twitter with a mole who helps rig elections and hides and deletes evidence of FBI wrongdoing?

 

Elon's playing the game. His public role is "objective businessman" who is profit-oriented and above all the politics. And I see this--in this context--as a role, not a belief system.

Even further, that is the best role to play to disinfect Twitter from all the nasty shit the intelligence community did with it.

As Elon said elsewhere, he is not suicidal. I think he knows he's playing with some nasty people. And that role helps a little. It allows him to throw a pork chop or two to the beast at the door.

I say let's give Elon a bit of flexibility while he is in drain the swamp mode. Instead of looking at what he says, look at what he does. When there is a discrepancy, take what he does as the better indicator of his true intentions.

If you want a Randian reference, think Francisco D'Anconia. 

Francisco lied to scumbags and hung out with them, too.

 

My beef with Elon is all that CCP money and government money in general. I mean, he is taking their money and doing great things with it, but it is still blood money.

A left wing singer I once produced (Geraldo Vandré) told me, when I said I did not want to take government money, that I was wrong. He said I should not only take it, but take ALL of it--ALL of it--and do beautiful things with it before they do shit. Because shit is the only thing they know how to do.

I put Elon in that kind of thinking. But I still don't like it.

Michael

(Just an aside): People can do this dance between what Elon Musk says and what he really means (or not means) all day, and that all may be true, but because I don't know enough about him in his private, personal life, and his beliefs, unless he personally reveals his plans to me, I'm limiting my responses to his statements as he presents them. (Not because I necessarily believe him; he could be lying, game-playing, etc.... It's for my OWN sanity; Otherwise, I could go down that rabbit-hole of "well, maybe he REALLY meant THIS...but THEN, maybe he's playing BOTH sides, for a third-party...maybe he's part of "Operation Trust"...and so on, etc, etc...)

(Quite frankly, I'm overwhelmed by all that talk, and just burned out from it. Rand once asked, "I may be naive, but are we ever going to live life on the level?" Yeah, it was naive then, and just as much now. Still...)


 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, ThatGuy said:

People can do this dance between what Elon Musk says and what he really means (or not means) all day...

TG,

Have you noticed you can't do that with what Elon Musk does?

You can only do that with what he says.

I prefer the do to the say.

Less ambiguity.

 

Michael

[ThatGuy]

25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

Have you noticed you can't do that with what Elon Musk does?

You can only do that with what he says.

I prefer the do to the say.

Less ambiguity.

 

Michael

 

25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

Have you noticed you can't do that with what Elon Musk does?

You can only do that with what he says.

I prefer the do to the say.

Less ambiguity.

 

Michael

I just edited my last post to add this:

"Quite frankly, I'm overwhelmed by all that talk, and just burned out from it. Rand once asked, 'I may be naive, but are we ever going to live life on the level?' Yeah, it was naive then, and just as much now. Still..."

Yes, I understand "watch what they do, and not what they say". But again, I'm just personally burned out from playing those games. (And it's not that I CAN'T do that with "with what Musk does vs. what he says", it's that I'm TIRED of doing that. Not just with him. Still, I personally want to see people INTEGRATE what they do with WHAT they say. Is THAT too much to ask? Naive, sure...but still...)

There's a scene from STAR TREK that captures my mood..."Space Seed", featuring the original appearance of Khan Noonien Singh: at a dinner in his "honor", Kirk and Spock are trying to tease out Khan's true origin via "small talk"...Khan sees right through it. When Kirk says:
"You have a tendency to express ideas in military terms, Mr. Khan.... This is a social occasion."
 Khan replies:
"It has been said that 'social occasions' are only warfare concealed. Many prefer it more honest, more -- open."

That said, I will give credit to Musk for what he's DOING, putting this out in the open.
But I'm also watching the left's response, with their socialist "intensification of struggle", and what THEY'RE doing, which is doubling-down. The revelations about the Bidens, Twitter and the FBI, the Project Veritas exposes, they're not going to change the minds of those on the left, or those suffering from severe TDS. Let alone the ostriches with their heads in the sand, who wouldn't look at all that even if the MSM were covering this (which they're not). Burned out or, not, the "warfare concealed" may very likely break out into open warfare soon enough...that would be "more honest" and "open". And all the "game-playing" will ultimately give way , at some point. Because the left ain't "playing". THEY mean it. And they will see through the game-playing, just as MSK does. (Whether Musk means it or not is no matter to them, anyway; if he's sincere about thinking that Trump would still lose, etc., they will still see him as a traitor to the right-wing Natttzzee cause...to paraphrase Simon and Garfunkle, "he's been branded, and Ayn Rand-ed a Trumpist- fascist, 'cause he's right-handed..."

(Not that I ever wanted it to come to that, but then, people in hell want ice water, too...)
 

[ThatGuy]

30 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Have you noticed you can't do that with what Elon Musk does?

You can only do that with what he says.

Well, HEY NOW: To be fair to ME, I DID give him credit for what he's DOING, and having the integrity to do it, despite being a self-proclaimed Clinton/Obama/Biden supporter...

(I'd just like to see more "integration" between what's said and done, is all...I know, I know, and people in hell want ice water...)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

TG,

A context is not a principle.

I hear you about thirsting for people who's talk and do are integrated.

But the context right now is reality. Do you want to change the world? If you do, it starts with reality as it exists, not with as you want it to be.

You change reality--in the future--to what you want it to be. Not in the present. In the present you start with reality as it is. How can you change something that is already changed? You can't. You have to start somewhere.

 

Elon Musk is what he is, not what you or I want him to be.

And he's the one who bought Twitter.

Which reality do you prefer? Twitter pre-Elon of Twitter under Elon?

Notice that both states had and have a strong impact on the world.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

... despite being a self-proclaimed Clinton/Obama/Biden supporter...

TG,

Well, Elon certainly got enough money from them.

So maybe he has reasons that are in his head and not in our head.

 

Michael

[ThatGuy]

7 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

A context is not a principle.

I hear you about thirsting for people who's talk and do are integrated.

But the context right now is reality. Do you want to change the world? If you do, it starts with reality as it exists, not with as you want it to be.

You change reality--in the future--to what you want it to be. Not in the present. In the present you start with reality as it is. How can you change something that is already changed? You can't. You have to start somewhere.

 

Elon Musk is what he is, not what you or I want him to be.

And he's the one who bought Twitter.

Which reality do you prefer? Twitter pre-Elon of Twitter under Elon?

Notice that both states had and have a strong impact on the world.

Michael

For crying out loud, MSK; I basically just conceded and agreed with all that; Can't you just let a guy be frustrated and rant in peace?



(It's all good, though. We both just want "less ambiguity". Just in our own way...And you do you, of course, but again, PERSONALLY, I'm still going to consider, in MY responses, the ideas he's promoting in HIS responses in addition to his deeds, because words means things, and ideas matter. I know there are those in O'land who take exception to Rand saying that philosophy and ideas move history, but they do matter...)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

For crying out loud, MSK; I basically just conceded and agreed with all that; Can't you just let a guy be frustrated and rant in peace?

TG,

All right, all right, all right all ready.

Apropos, have you ever thought of ranting on Twitter?

I'm not saying you should. I'm just being a smart-ass.

 

Michael

[ThatGuy]

37 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

All right, all right, all right all ready.

Apropos, have you ever thought of ranting on Twitter?

I'm not saying you should. I'm just being a smart-ass.

 

Michael

To paraphrase Dominique Wynand: “Peter, if I ever want to punish myself for something terrible, if I ever want to punish myself disgustingly—I'll rant on Twitter."



(Personally, was never a big fan of Twitter. I use it to get leads on stories/information/breaking news, but as a social media forum, it was "meh" at best. Too much noise-to-signal, for me, comments/interaction wise; I swear I lose I.Q. points by just reading some of the comments, there, let alone the frustration of the nature of much of the fights, the deliberate trolling, the gaslighting in many of the arguments, the dog-piling of those spreading outright lies [in order to overwhelm the thread with the lies and obscure the truth], which then has one, in a "war of attrition", spending too much time in constant rebuttals to said lies, and the refusal of others to even consider the bare-naked truth...and too much "herd behavior", with so much chest-beating and to be blunt about it, "dick-waving", on BOTH sides of the aisle, even...the insults and attacks which leads to "blocking", which leads to people claiming "victory" because they were blocked, supposedly having been rejected by sore losers for giving the unrefutable winning argument, while others claim victory because the other person got hostile and got blocked, but really no one is "winning" anything, as nothing is resolved...just the nature of the social-media beast...)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

TG,

Once you learn how to use some of Twitter's functions, say, screwing around with the search functions and the "latest tweets" thing, Twitter is great for getting up-to-the minute information about recent events.

But you have to test and work it. There is a lot of garbage along with the pearls.

Under Elon, the garbage level has gone down exponentially, but there is still a hell of a lot of it. At least it comes from humans now and not bots.

I like Twitter for embeds here on OL because it takes so little time.

For myself, I found enough important people tweet that it is worth the effort to work around the garbage.

 

As to tweeting, I tweet at times now, but it is nothing more than succumbing to the urge to blurt. And who doesn't like to blurt?  

I suppose with study, it could be a good traffic source and market and so on.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Elon actually liked this tweet.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

Ok, MSK...I'm looking at what Elon is DOING at the moment: exposing the groomers from within Twitter, namely, his recently fired/former "safety" officer Yoel Roth. And to that, I say: excellent
 

(And then, there's this coming up in all of that, to boot:)

Do what you gotta do, Elon. Burn Twitter to the ground and salt the earth so nothing ever grows on that spot again, if that's what it takes.

[ThatGuy]

This Roth guy was at it at least as far back as 2010...
 

Which explains a lot...
 

Do it, Elon. Salt the earth upon which Twitter currently stands...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is Part 4 for those interested.

I will find a way to get a simplified version up later.

Cookin'

 

Michael

 

EDIT: Elon just announced the thread.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the thread unrolled in my own way.

Note that this time journalist Michael Shellenberger has the honor of presenting the thread. He did not number his tweets. I am pretty sure I got them all.

QUOTE

Michael Shellenberger
@ShellenbergerMD

1. TWITTER FILES, PART 4

The Removal of Donald Trump: January 7

As the pressure builds, Twitter executives build the case for a permanent ban

 . . .

 On Jan 7, senior Twitter execs:

- create justifications to ban Trump

- seek a change of policy for Trump alone, distinct from other political leaders

- express no concern for the free speech or democracy implications of a ban

This #TwitterFiles is reported with @lwoodhouse

. . .

 

For those catching up, please see:

Part 1, where @mtaibbi documents how senior Twitter executives violated their own policies to prevent the spread of accurate information about Hunter Biden’s laptop;

Quote
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394
Thread: THE TWITTER FILES
End Quote.

. . .

Part 2, where @bariweiss shows how senior Twitter execs created secret blacklists to “de-amplify” disfavored Twitter users, not just specific tweets;

Quote
Bari Weiss
@bariweiss
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600
THREAD: THE TWITTER FILES PART TWO. TWITTER’S SECRET BLACKLISTS.
End Quote

. . .

And Part 3, where @mtaibbi documents how senior Twitter execs censored tweets by Trump in the run-up to the Nov 2020 election while regularly engaging with representatives of U.S. government law enforcement agencies.

Quote
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601352083617505281
1. THREAD: The Twitter Files THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP Part One: October 2020-January 6th
End Quote.

. . .

For years, Twitter had resisted calls to ban Trump. “Blocking a world leader from Twitter,” it wrote in 2018, “would hide important info... [and] hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.”

Quote.
Twitter Public Policy
@Policy
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/949399583842619392
Jan 5, 2018
Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.

We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them, and enforce our rules accordingly. No one person's account drives Twitter’s growth, or influences these decisions. We work hard to remain unbiased with the public interest in mind.

We are working to make Twitter the best place to see and freely discuss everything that matters. We believe that’s the best way to help our society make progress.
End Quote.

. . .

But after the events of Jan 6, the internal and external pressure on Twitter CEO @jack grows.

Former First Lady @michelleobama, tech journalist @karaswisher, @ADL, high-tech VC @ChrisSacca, and many others, publicly call on Twitter to permanently ban Trump.

 

 

 

. . .

Dorsey was on vacation in French Polynesia the week of January 4-8, 2021. He phoned into meetings but also delegated much of the handling of the situation to senior execs @yoyoel, Twitter’s Global Head of Trust and Safety, and @vijaya Head of Legal, Policy, & Trust.

. . .

As context, it's important to understand that Twitter’s staff & senior execs were overwhelmingly progressive. In 2018, 2020, and 2022, 96%, 98%, & 99% of Twitter staff's political donations went to Democrats.

Quote.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598829996264390656
11. This system wasn't balanced. It was based on contacts. Because Twitter was and is overwhelmingly staffed by people of one political orientation, there were more channels, more ways to complain, open to the left (well, Democrats) than the right.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/twitter/summary?id=D000067113

End Quote.

. . .

In 2017, Roth tweeted that there were “ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.”

In April 2022, Roth told a colleague that his goal “is to drive change in the world,” which is why he decided not to become an academic.

 

. . .

On January 7, @Jack emails employees saying Twitter needs to remain consistent in its policies, including the right of users to return to Twitter after a temporary suspension After, Roth reassures an employee that "people who care about this... aren't happy with where we are"

. . .

Around 11:30 am PT, Roth DMs his colleagues with news that he is excited to share.

“GUESS WHAT,” he writes. “Jack just approved repeat offender for civic integrity.”

The new approach would create a system where five violations ("strikes") would result in permanent suspension.

. . .

“Progress!” exclaims a member of Roth’s Trust and Safety Team.

The exchange between Roth and his colleagues makes clear that they had been pushing @jack for greater restrictions on the speech Twitter allows around elections.

. . .

The colleague wants to know if the decision means Trump can finally be banned. The person asks, "does the incitement to violence aspect change that calculus?”

Roth says it doesn't. "Trump continues to just have his one strike" (remaining).

. . .

Roth's colleague's query about "incitement to violence" heavily foreshadows what will happen the following day.

On January 8, Twitter announces a permanent ban on Trump due to the "risk of further incitement of violence."

. . .

On J8, Twitter says its ban is based on "specifically how [Trump's tweets] are being received & interpreted."

But in 2019, Twitter said it did "not attempt to determine all potential interpretations of the content or its intent.”

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldleaders2019

 

. . .

The *only* serious concern we found expressed within Twitter over the implications for free speech and democracy of banning Trump came from a junior person in the organization. It was tucked away in a lower-level Slack channel known as “site-integrity-auto."

. . .

"This might be an unpopular opinion but one off ad hoc decisions like this that don’t appear rooted in policy are imho a slippery slope... This now appears to be a fiat by an online platform CEO with a global presence that can gatekeep speech for the entire world..."

. . .

Twitter employees use the term "one off" frequently in their Slack discussions. Its frequent use reveals significant employee discretion over when and whether to apply warning labels on tweets and "strikes" on users. Here are typical examples.

 

. . .

Recall from #TwitterFiles2 by @bariweiss that, according to Twitter staff, "We control visibility quite a bit. And we control the amplification of your content quite a bit. And normal people do not know how much we do."

Quote.
Bari Weiss
@bariweiss
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601015872046260226
11. “We control visibility quite a bit. And we control the amplification of your content quite a bit. And normal people do not know how much we do,” one Twitter engineer told us. Two additional Twitter employees confirmed.
End Quote.

. . .

Twitter employees recognize the difference between their own politics & Twitter's Terms of Service (TOS), but they also engage in complex interpretations of content in order to stamp out prohibited tweets, as a series of exchanges over the "#stopthesteal" hashtag reveal.

 

. . .

Roth immediately DMs a colleague to ask that they add "stopthesteal" & [QAnon conspiracy term] "kraken" to a blacklist of terms to be deamplified.

Roth's colleague objects that blacklisting "stopthesteal" risks "deamplifying counterspeech" that validates the election.

. . .

Indeed, notes Roth's colleague, "a quick search of top stop the steal tweets and they’re counterspeech"

But they quickly come up with a solution: "deamplify accounts with stopthesteal in the name/profile" since "those are not affiliated with counterspeech"

. . .

But it turns out that even blacklisting "kraken" is less straightforward than they thought. That's because kraken, in addition to being a QAnon conspiracy theory based on the mythical Norwegian sea monster, is also the name of a cryptocurrency exchange, and was thus "allowlisted"

. . .

Employees struggle with whether to punish users who share screenshots of Trump's deleted J6 tweets

 "we should bounce these tweets with a strike given the screen shot violates the policy"

 "they are criticising Trump, so I am bit hesitant with applying strike to this user"

. . .

What if a user dislikes Trump *and* objects to Twitter's censorship? The tweet still gets deleted. But since the *intention* is not to deny the election result, no punishing strike is applied.

"if there are instances where the intent is unclear please feel free to raise"

. . .

Around noon, a confused senior executive in advertising sales sends a DM to Roth.

Sales exec: "jack says: 'we will permanently suspend [Trump] if our policies are violated after a 12 hour account lock'… what policies is jack talking about?"

Roth: "*ANY* policy violation"

. . .

What happens next is essential to understanding how Twitter justified banning Trump.

Sales exec: "are we dropping the public interest [policy] now..."

Roth, six hours later: "In this specific case, we're changing our public interest approach for his account..."

. . .

The ad exec is referring to Twitter’s policy of “Public-interest exceptions," which allows the content of elected officials, even if it violates Twitter rules, “if it directly contributes to understanding or discussion of a matter of public concern”

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-interest

. . .

Roth pushes for a permanent suspension of Rep. Matt Gaetz even though it “doesn’t quite fit anywhere (duh)”

It's a kind of test case for the rationale for banning Trump.

“I’m trying to talk [Twitter’s] safety [team] into... removal as a conspiracy that incites violence.”

. . .

Around 2:30, comms execs DM Roth to say they don't want to make a big deal of the QAnon ban to the media because they fear "if we push this it looks we’re trying to offer up something in place of the thing everyone wants," meaning a Trump ban.

END QUOTE

 

 

How about that one?

Did you enjoy?

Hmmmmmm?...

I did...

 

Michael

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are a couple of relevant posts I made from the Coronavirus thread.

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Elon weighed in a couple of minutes ago.

It seems like he has been looking at the science behind the jabs, being one who actually understands science in depth.

And his conclusion?

And...

11 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm going to continue this topic over on the Musk and Twitter thread, but for those who are more interested in the Coronavirus, here are three very interesting tweets in addition to the one above.

Oh, but it gets better.

 

 

The assholes locked up everything to contain information but their playground. They never imagined someone would buy their playground, just like with Trump's 2016 election--they never imagined a billionaire not beholden to them would run for President.

Well, they can scare judges and politicians for a while to keep the hatches latched on technicalities, but they can't scare Elon. He's putting all of the dirty laundry out there for the whole world to see.

(Man, do I love legal immigrants.  )

Now, some of the courts at least have to deal with it. Things have become too obvious.

I wish I were a lawyer. I would be licking my chops.

 

 

And the predators? They are not going off into that good night easily. 

Here are two top trending threads on Twitter right now. Go to either and see what your betters look like when they can't have their toys anymore at your expense.

It's a hoot.  

 

#ElonMuskIsaGiantTurd

#ElonIsDestroyingTwitter

 

LOL...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I made a post on the Story Wars thread (see here) saying Elon Musk, or at least Twitter under Elon Musk, is the kraken.

But it turns out, Elon does not see himself as the kraken in Story Wars terms. At least not yet.

 

Here is how he sees himself.

That's a pretty damn good story, too.

 

Here's the clip. Watch it and, as you do, think about all that is happening at Twitter right now.

 

The story fits.

 

But I still think Elon is a baby kraken waking up.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Elon is canceling and blacklisting one billion and a half Twitter bot accounts today.

This guy had to have studied storytelling.

He's doing all the things typical American heroes do in mainstream fiction.

Of course, I'm talking about the real American hero archetype, not the recent woke shit that loses money left and right.

This is Sylvester Stallone, Chuck Norris, Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, etc., level.

Michael